What
makes something sustainable? What defines sustainability?
To
be sustainable an activity, action or policy must first satisfy a need, want or
desire. In short, a demand must
exist. The first fallacy of
sustainability is to correlate sustainability with supply: sustainability is
not a function of supply, it is a function of demand – existence of a substance
does not define its potential as a resource, its utility does. An entity having use, utility and a perceived
worth to users, has a functional value and thus, constitutes a resource for
which a demand exists. As technology changes, so does our sense of value of
substances as to their value as a resource.
So,
first condition of sustainability: demand.
Secondly,
sustainability is defined by effectiveness.
Any activity, action or policy that is ineffective should by definition,
be considered as inherently unsustainable.
If sustainability is the continued, progressive improvement from a base
condition, any action, activity or policy that is ineffective, that exacerbates
rather than improves the base condition, is therefore antithetical to
sustainability, it is inherently unsustainable.
So,
a second condition of sustainability: effectiveness.
Thirdly,
sustainability is defined by efficiency.
Sustainability is the progressive improvement of the human condition. To do more, in more places, more often, for
more people is the very essence of efficiency.
Sustainability of any activity, action or policy is contingent upon
economies of scale and context, the efficient delivery of change in a manner
that make the activity, action or policy valuable to users and a perceived
improvement in their living condition and situations. Demand moves from quality to quantity as the
free-market rules of economics are applied. Attention and application of efficiency
is the fundamental law of economics which determines which innovations are
sustained and life changing and which are fads, passing fancy and whims for
which no imposition or government fiat can enforce their widespread
adoption. Without efficiency, an idea is
just that: an idea. Efficiency is
essential to the successful implementation of any sustainable activity.
The
third condition of sustainability is efficiency.
But
what of ideology? Of defined “greenness”? Of perceived necessity for ecological
salvation, world peace and/or sky falling pandemic? None of these elements define sustainability,
nor can they pre-empt either of the three essential and inherent conditions
described above.
Activists
may seek to impose any activity, action or policy in the name of whatever
contemporary ideology is in fashion and in the political ascendancy. Declaring something green, trotting out
studies that indicate the necessity for any prescribed activity, holding mass
rallies of support and/or corrupting and co-opting whole systems of governance
can not obviate nor hide the essential character of any proposed activity,
action or policy. And if the advocated
change is not sustainable, it is unsustainable and, thus, stupid.
But,
wait, can’t something just be neutral?
Neither good nor bad?
No. That is the crux of sustainability. There is no steady state, no neutrality. Every activity, action or policy has
implications, effects and affects that either move societies and individuals
towards an improved state or preclude that movement, act to facilitate positive
change or hinder its achievement. To
stand still is to lose ground as change is constant and innovation and the
human condition must continue to progress alongside those natural changes: any
dead fish can float downstream, progress comes from the constant application of
efforts to improve, to develop, to innovate to sustain the human
condition.
Sustainability
is human progress defined by demand, effectiveness and efficiency. Nothing is sustainable that does not satisfy
these three conditions.
Moreover,
if one accepts that improving the human condition is the most important and
valuable activity, action or policy one can engage in, any change that
precludes, hinders or otherwise slows the implementation of sustainability
through a lack of demand, ineffectiveness and/or inefficiency, is stupid.
So,
where are we? Is today’s political
landscape resplendent with potential and progressive innovation? Or is it still entrapped in a plethora of
dogma and adrift in a sea of stupidity?
